Why Do People Think Peyton Should Have More Sb's?

[GoPats]

It's not a Manning thing, it's a Colts thing.

When a team shows such dominance in the regular season and has a sub-500 playoff record, it's sometimes hard to understand why. I realize the stock answer is, "Well dummy, it's hard to win in the playoffs," and I realize that is entirely true. It's extremely difficult to run the gauntlet of postseason caliber teams once the regular slate of games ends. Even if a lot of the teams you're beating in the regular season are also playoff teams.

To some extent it is a little puzzling and difficult to explain. But the adage, "defense wins championships" has an element of truth to it, and the Colts (like the current Patriots) have obviously been a more offense-oriented team over the years. The result of that is that your offense (and your QB) needs to be dang near perfect every time they step on the field, and no one is perfect.

It'd be easier to explain if Indy was something like 12-9 or 13-10 in the postseason over the past decade. But the sub-500 mark, for one of the dominant teams of the 2000s, is a little puzzling to me.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I said MORE complete.

What looks better on a resume. Beating Grossman in a SB. Or beating Brees in a SB?

I'm not saying he's not the greatest of all time. He is. And I'm not saying we shouldn't have win the SB. We did. But the fact of the matter is Grossman is/was the worst starting QB in the last 10+ years to appear in a Super Bowl.

As for the Pats game. I agree that was our SB. But just that, OUR super bowl. As in Colt fans SB. The rest of the nation considers our lone SB less than stellar. Fair or unfair. That's how it's viewed.

It is Interesting Grossman (and the Bears) beat Brees (and the Saints) with the number one offense in the NFL in their NFCCG that year. People blame the weather and say if played in Superdome, N.O would have been in Miami vs. our Colts. Funny Grossman beat Brees in snow/wind, but couldn't beat Peyton in the rain/wind. Let it be known it was a team effort Colts won with. Rhodes (running) /Addai (running and receiving) doing bulk of the work. QB stat lines not bad for either considering weather-

Manning 25/38 247 1 TD 1 Int

Grossman 20/28 165 1 TD 2 Int (last one a 4th Qtr. pick 6 to seal win)

Grossman had two wet ball fumbles and Peyton one. Thomas Jones ran for 112 yds while Rhodes galloped for 113. Addai got 77 rushing and 66 receiving.

Bears beat Saints in tough weather (snow/wind) in NFCCG. We beat Bears in tough weather (rain/wind) in SB. We deserve it as much as anybody.ever has. And when we faced Brees/Saints directly a couple years later on that same field in Miami in a SB, we didn't finish.

[DILLIGAFER]

It's not a Manning thing, it's a Colts thing.

When a team shows such dominance in the regular season and has a sub-500 playoff record, it's sometimes hard to understand why. I realize the stock answer is, "Well dummy, it's hard to win in the playoffs," and I realize that is entirely true. It's extremely difficult to run the gauntlet of postseason caliber teams once the regular slate of games ends. Even if a lot of the teams you're beating in the regular season are also playoff teams.

To some extent it is a little puzzling and difficult to explain. But the adage, "defense wins championships" has an element of truth to it, and the Colts (like the current Patriots) have obviously been a more offense-oriented team over the years. The result of that is that your offense (and your QB) needs to be dang near perfect every time they step on the field, and no one is perfect.

It'd be easier to explain if Indy was something like 12-9 or 13-10 in the postseason over the past decade. But the sub-500 mark, for one of the dominant teams of the 2000s, is a little puzzling to me.

I dont find it puzzling at all. Over the last 10 years, the AFC was a dominant force. When the colts were in the playoffs, which teams did they end up usually playing against, then usually the team that beat them ended up winning the superbowl. Playing the Patriots, steelrs, ect.. all good teams in their own right. 4 of those superbowls went to the Patriots, 2 to the colts, and the steelers have 3 appearances not championships.

Since it seems the tide has changed to an extent to the NFC being the dominant force. Packers, Saints, ect. Jmho.

[oldunclemark]

Have to agree that having huge regular season success minus championships only benefits the bottom-line of ownership. Keeps the seats filled, sells a lot of merchandise, but does nothing for the legacy and historical recognition. The odor of underachievement is strong and hard to get rid of, similar to a cat I once owned briefly.

Nobody intends to have great regular season success at odds with post-season success...

You assume one leads to the other..

But in football..an injury-based game...its not always possible..

Only casual fans wont give Indy credit for regular season wins...

Its not easy to win Supers Bowls..Just ask New England about the last 3 years..

[jskinnz]

I said MORE complete.

What looks better on a resume. Beating Grossman in a SB. Or beating Brees in a SB?

I'm not saying he's not the greatest of all time. He is. And I'm not saying we shouldn't have win the SB. We did. But the fact of the matter is Grossman is/was the worst starting QB in the last 10+ years to appear in a Super Bowl.

As for the Pats game. I agree that was our SB. But just that, OUR super bowl. As in Colt fans SB. The rest of the nation considers our lone SB less than stellar. Fair or unfair. That's how it's viewed.

Is the quality of the Colts Super Bowl win really a topic of discussion nationally? Let me answer that for you. No - no one cares.

[oldunclemark]

Playoffs and championship are what sports are all about. The regular is for eliminating the also rans. Hence why viewership doubles during playoff of any sport.

Its harder to win the Super Bowl than you think it is...

Dallas....has won one playoff game in how many years?

[IndyTrav]

Is the quality of the Colts Super Bowl win really a topic of discussion nationally? Let me answer that for you. No - no one cares.

Not anymore its not. Because its been put to rest as fact.....

And yes people do/did care. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the infinite Peyton v Brady threads etc in which people tout rings as a measure of accomplishment and how a Qb is viewed throughout history because of them.

[jskinnz]

Not anymore its not. Because its been put to rest as fact.....

And yes people do/did care. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the infinite Peyton v Brady threads etc in which people tout rings as a measure of accomplishment and how a Qb is viewed throughout history because of them.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Please share with me the factual analysis. This ought to be interesting.

[IndyTrav]

Complete and utter nonsense.

Please share with me the factual analysis. This ought to be interesting.

What about Grossman being the worst starting SB QB in 10+years is difficult to understand? Would you like a spreadsheet?

In a QB driven league, where QBs are the end all be all, Peyton got his lone SB against arguably the worst of them all.

I don't hold that against him, and I don't think anyone should, but if you don't think people outside the walls of the Colts forum hold that against him, then I don't know what else to tell you.

[GoPats]

I dont find it puzzling at all. Over the last 10 years, the AFC was a dominant force. When the colts were in the playoffs, which teams did they end up usually playing against, then usually the team that beat them ended up winning the superbowl. Playing the Patriots, steelrs, ect.. all good teams in their own right. 4 of those superbowls went to the Patriots, 2 to the colts, and the steelers have 3 appearances not championships.

Since it seems the tide has changed to an extent to the NFC being the dominant force. Packers, Saints, ect. Jmho.

I see your point but it's been four times, I think, that Indy has lost to the eventual champion. The Patriots beat the Colts in the playoffs in '03 and '04 on route to the Super Bowl, and the Steelers beat them after the '05 season before winning a title. Then the Saints, of course. In between there were kind of unexpected losses to the Chargers, the Jets, etc.

I agree on your point about the NFC though. It's definitely become the more dominant conference.

[jskinnz]

What about Grossman being the worst starting SB QB in 10+years is difficult to understand? Would you like a spreadsheet?

In a QB driven league, where QBs are the end all be all, Peyton got his lone SB against arguably the worst of them all.

I don't hold that against him, and I don't think anyone should, but if you don't think people outside the walls of the Colts forum hold that against him, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Grossman - yes the worst starting QB in the last few years. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

Wanting to hear about this great national uproar over the bite that took out of Manning's legacy.

[IndyTrav]

Grossman - yes the worst starting QB in the last few years. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

Wanting to hear about this great national uproar over the bite that took out of Manning's legacy.

Hyperbole? On the internet?! Get outta town!

I say: "The rest of the nation considers our lone SB less than stellar."

Which you turn it into "great national uproar that took a bite out of Mannings legacy"

Nice broski.

[jskinnz]

Hyperbole? On the internet?! Get outta town!

I say: "The rest of the nation considers our lone SB less than stellar."

Which you turn it into "great national uproar that took a bite out of Mannings legacy"

Nice broski.

Yeah - there is a big stretch between those statements.

[ruksak]

Especially in football more then baseball, the playoffs are a 1 game crap shoot, anything can happe. that is why I believe a true greatness of a team is better seen in what they do during the regular season over the post season.

huh?

The rest of the nation considers our lone SB less than stellar. Fair or unfair. That's how it's viewed.

Too bad we didn't get to play that in fair weather or a dome. To date, the only SB to have rain, and it was a torrential downpour throughout. Were it not for the rain, the world would have witnessed a real show of Indy football.

As to the OP, when one views the total body of work produced by the Colts over the last 10 years in the regular season, it is only natural to assume the post-season success would have been far greater. The post season results seem to defy logic, as year after year a regular season juggernaut would fold in the divisional round in front of their home crowd. The questions as to why this happened have been thoroughly answered this year. It wasn't that Peyton couldn't win in the post-season, it was a confluence of things that Peyton couldn't control. Peyton winning 1 in spite of all this is truly amazing.

[SanAntonioColt]

People who think the Colts should have won more SBs probably overestimate the level of talent they have had during the PM-era. The Cols have been a small, soft team with a handful of good players and a great QB. The small, not very fast, receivers would have been mediocre at best performers on other teams and Betty White could have pushed the OLine back in 3rd/4th and 1 situations.